NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Those leagues are grabbing the lower end-talent (when judging against other pros). Yes, Radulov left, but is he really that big of a loss? Maybe some lower-end 2nd liners head over there to get 1st line money/minutes. However those guys are not that big of a hit for the league.

If the actual lockout lasts the whole season, I think many players - and not only European born players- are gonna stay over there for good.

You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Mets/Yankees. They were the bigger team until about 15-16 years ago.

As for the Isles, you might be right on which years they peaked attendance wise. I just remember being surprised that their cup years were not their best. Their attendance started to skid following the 87-88 season, had a few peaks here and there, but has been a problem for the most part for the past 20 years or so.

I would say up until about 98-99ish, the pecking order in this town was

Lemme guess, you grew up in the mid 80's, the heyday of the Mets. You seem to forget the rest of NY baseball history. Pre-96, as you put it, included 7 Yankees world series appearances and 3 championships during the Mets' existence (not to mention their legendary history pre-Mets). Only time you could say NY was a Mets town was 69-73, when the Yanks were at their worst and the Mets were the cute new thing. Can we get back to hockey?

Lemme guess, you grew up in the mid 80's, the heyday of the Mets. You seem to forget the rest of NY baseball history. Pre-96, as you put it, included 7 Yankees world series appearances and 3 championships during the Mets' existence (not to mention their legendary history pre-Mets). Only time you could say NY was a Mets town was 69-73, when the Yanks were at their worst and the Mets were the cute new thing. Can we get back to hockey?

Yes, I grew up in the 80s and it has been said on WFAN many many many times how this until the past 15 years or so was a National League town and how the Mets were the more popular team as they came into existence. Only time during the Mets existence until 1996, they weren't was the period of 77-82, after they traded Seaver and before Gooden and Strawberry came on.

They don't even have a new CBA yet so how can they guess this? Also, this assumes Phoenix-->Seattle? BecausE I think Seattle gets a team before another in the Toronto area. Hell even Hamilton before another in the Toronto area.

I believe Markham (Greater Toronto Area) would get a team before Hamilton

Two more teams in Canada and a change to 4 conferences would make me forget everything about the lockout pretty quickly, I guess. I would love to have more intense rivalries caused by smaller conferences.

If Hanson builds a new arena in Seattle for a NBA team and he controls revenues from parking,concessions and all other events that take place there,how will another tenant,an NHL team, make enough money to be viable? Clearly owning the venue is more important than just owning an NHL franchise.Owning both NBA and NHL teams is the answer but Hanson does not want to own an NHL team.Big gamble for anyone not owning the arena.

The Nationals aren't drawing much. They were only about 70 percent attendance..

You can't hold baseball attendance percentages to the same benchmarks as the NHL. Sellouts are the exception in MLB - not the rule. Only 3 teams (Boston, Philly, and the Giants) basically sold out the year. Only 11 teams broke 80%. The Nats came in at #14 (both in attendance, 30K, and %-age, 72.3%) - significantly better than in previous years.

If Hanson builds a new arena in Seattle for a NBA team and he controls revenues from parking,concessions and all other events that take place there,how will another tenant,an NHL team, make enough money to be viable? Clearly owning the venue is more important than just owning an NHL franchise.Owning both NBA and NHL teams is the answer but Hanson does not want to own an NHL team.Big gamble for anyone not owning the arena.

BTW the city/county will own the arena. Both groups will be paying rent.

Hansen will have a partner that will own the NHL team. He is not a hockey guy. He was clear that he prefers the owner of said team be a hockey guy.

We need both to make the arena financially viable long term. Hansen is set to get 80m in public bonds from the county if we get a NHL team before the transfer date of the arena.

Its in his best interest to get hockey its just that he won't own it. I'm sure there will be something worked out between the two ownership groups involving revenue

BTW the city/county will own the arena. Both groups will be paying rent.

Hansen will have a partner that will own the NHL team. He is not a hockey guy. He was clear that he prefers the owner of said team be a hockey guy.

We need both to make the arena financially viable long term. Hansen is set to get 80m in public bonds from the county if we get a NHL team before the transfer date of the arena.

Its in his best interest to get hockey its just that he won't own it. I'm sure there will be something worked out between the two ownership groups involving revenue

If they are paying rent, then eventually they will be one of the teams struggling to keep up with the salary floor. Being north of the mason-dixie line doesn't solve that. The real money is in owning the arena and the tv network.

If they are paying rent, then eventually they will be one of the teams struggling to keep up with the salary floor. Being north of the mason-dixie line doesn't solve that. The real money is in owning the arena and the tv network.

There is a reason why city/county will own the land/arena. We have an initative called I-91 in the city of Seattle that forbids public funds unless it shows a return on the investment based on a 30 year treasure bond.

In order to get public bonds from Seattle the proposal has to meet i-91.

BTW the city/county will own the arena. Both groups will be paying rent.

Hansen will have a partner that will own the NHL team. He is not a hockey guy. He was clear that he prefers the owner of said team be a hockey guy.

We need both to make the arena financially viable long term. Hansen is set to get 80m in public bonds from the county if we get a NHL team before the transfer date of the arena.

Its in his best interest to get hockey its just that he won't own it. I'm sure there will be something worked out between the two ownership groups involving revenue

Previous reports lead me to belief that Hanson owned the property where the venue was to be built and could purchase more property next to existing,would receive some government funding to build but he would control the venue itself.It also implied that he needed another tenant to make a go of it.Do you have a link or source i can follow up on as to who will control this venue?

In a gate-driven league, why have teams in places where you need to give away free tickets to fill the place? Put teams where people want to pay for the product.

Could Seattle work? Maybe. But we know that Quebec City and Toronto2 will work. What kind of business avoids its strongest markets so they can panhandle for customers in places that don't care?

Much smarter to open a new Tim Horton's in dowtown Edmonton than dowtown El Paso.

I think it comes down to those who want to see the sport grow as much as it can vs. those who believe that it can thrive where it is now (plus maybe another market here or there).

Both do have their merits.
I lost my team soley due to some of the worst (if not the worst) ownership we've seen in our lifetime. So now the growth of the league means little to me; I don't have a dog in the fight anymore. But I still believe that trying to reach into every corner of the US and Canada is the way to grow the sport and make it as viable as possible. This just takes time, a generation + in a new market. Kids who grew up watching the new team will eventually become adults who have their own kids and the money to go to games and buy the merch. Many fans judge the new markets on the others that have been around for 50+ years and/or are in a region where hockey has been ingrained in the culture. They certaintly don't have the patience to see the merits of a long term growth strategy. The current owners of the most established markets might not like this plan either to be honest; their wanting more immediate returns as opposed to a plan that would pay off in a couple decades.

Putting a team in Quebec and another in Toronto would definitely work. The arena's would be packed, at least for the first few years. Merchandise would fly off the shelves. I don't see a problem in that.

In some way, I'm torn between the two schools of thought (mostly because I have no vested interest anymore). But I do know that anyone on either side cannot state with any true certainty that one plan is destined to fail. Too many other factors that can and will change prevent us from knowing (future economy, future demographics, etc). And too much passion with too little rational thought from the fans render just about every argument null and void.

Just sticks in my craw that some think their perspective is the only way. Whether it agrees with what I think is irrelevant.
Most threads would die if the fans thought like this, I know. But it perplexes me how many people believe they can present the same points and perspectives (98% of the time with little facts or just plain lies) in every thread and have an arrogance of how "correct" they are.